Fisker vs. Tesla

A Lesson in Not Taking Shortcuts

The recent emergence of the modern plug-in electric vehicle has brought more automaker start-ups to the marketplace than we've seen in decades, with Fisker Automotive and Tesla Motors the most prominent examples. While there were numerous parallels and connections between the two California-based start-ups early on, the last 12 months have seen a dramatic divergence in their fates. How did it happen?

In hindsight, it seems that Fisker ignored that warning we all heard so many times from our high-school algebra teachers not to skip any steps in the process. If steps are skipped, the chances of messing up are dramatically increased.

Adapting

Ten years ago Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning launched what would become Tesla Motors. They soon were joined by Elon Musk, who had a big bag of cash from selling his share of PayPal to eBay. The goal was to build a production electric sports car similar on the tzero concept developed by AC Propulsion (ACP). ACP was uninterested in the immense effort required to productionize the wickedly fast and emissions-free roadster, so the trio of tech entrepreneurs took on the challenge.

Since they were starting from scratch in the car business, they opted to adapt a lot of existing technology for the Tesla Roadster. Because there were no lithium-ion cell manufacturers producing cells specifically designed for automotive applications, chief technology officer JB Straubel and his team followed ACP's lead and licensed some of their technology. They used the same well-proven, if somewhat volatile, lithium-cobalt-oxide cells found in millions of laptop computers.

Despite the batteries' propensity to occasionally self-immolate, manufacturers such as Panasonic knew how to mass-produce these cells, and the Tesla engineers devised a packaging strategy to keep them cool and monitor their condition.Instead of designing a platform from scratch, Tesla teamed up with Lotus to adapt the remarkably lightweight yet strong aluminum chassis from the Elise. Constructed from a mix of riveted and bonded aluminum extrusions, stampings, and castings, the Elise architecture was easily stretched to accommodate different needs. In Tesla's case, the wheelbase was extended to provide a slightly longer cabin and room for the mid-mounted battery pack.While the production Roadster shared only a handful of parts with the Elise, mutating its DNA allowed Tesla to create a relatively robust debut entry into the marketplace, even if the launch was about two years behind schedule and well over budget.

Starting from scratch (mostly)

Henrik Fisker took a decidedly different approach with the Karma. He launched his company in late 2007 after an unhappy time working with none other than Tesla. Fisker's design firm had been contracted by Tesla to design its second car, which evolved into the Model S.

No stranger to the auto industry, Fisker had previously served as a designer at BMW and Aston Martin prior to striking out on his own with Fisker Coachbuild. Fisker and his cohorts decided to dive right in and create an all-new vehicle from the wheels up with a new powertrain architecture using many parts from suppliers that were new to the automotive business.The Karma was designed around a plug-in series hybrid layout similar to what General Motors was developing for the Chevrolet Volt. One of the few major components sourced from a known high-volume supplier was the 2.0-liter turbocharged GM four-cylinder as a range extender. Fisker Automotive investor Quantum Technologies, which had automotive experience mainly as a supplier for low-volume research projects like fuel cell vehicles, supplied the electric motors for the Karma.

Of course the single most important element of any plug-in vehicle is the battery pack. Until recently, no company had any experience making large-scale lithium-ion batteries for high-volume automotive applications. After jumping from Advanced Lithium Power to Enerdel, Fisker finally landed with the also-ran on the Volt program, A123 Systems. A123 had some very promising technology, but its lack of experience in the automotive space was one of the reasons cited by GM when it opted to go with LG Chem for the Volt.

What could possibly go wrong?

So while Tesla used proven battery technology from reliable suppliers in a new application, Fisker went all in with new technology from a new source in a new product from a new company.

A lot could and did go wrong. Basic development work had already begun in early 2006, well before GM showed the Volt concept to the world in January 2007. Within a couple of months, GM had awarded battery development contracts to LG Chem and A123. By the end of October of that year, GM already had the first prototype packs in its lab. By the time the Volt went on sale in late 2010, it had accumulated tens of thousands of hours of charge and discharge cycles on hundreds of batteries in the lab and in vehicles. This is the kind of progress that can only be made by testing many batteries around the clock.The scale of Tesla's testing was significantly smaller, but even it had more than three years of experience by the time the Roadster went on sale, and another four years by the time the first Model S was delivered.Fisker showed the first design mockup of the Karma in January, 2008 in Detroit, and a somewhat more complete version a year later. As late as the 2009 Detroit show, Henrik Fisker was still saying that Karma deliveries would begin by the end of that year, even though no fully functional prototype existed. It wasn't until mid-2009 that A123 Systems even came up in the conversation. As every automaker (not to mention Boeing with its recent experience with the 787) that has worked with plug-in vehicles will affirm, those batteries require an awful lot of testing in a lot of conditions to verify durability and understand how they work so that they aren't overcharged or discharged.

There is simply no substitute at this point for the time and effort required to conduct that testing. Even Tesla, which has had a remarkably reliable run so far, has seen issues with some Roadster batteries that got bricked when they were completely discharged and left to sit for a time.With the apparent indecision about battery suppliers, it was clear to pretty much everyone not affiliated with Fisker that there was no way customers would be getting Karmas for Christmas in 2009. We don't know what kind of battery was installed when Fisker finally got its first running prototypes in mid-2009, but with the limited resources of a startup, there is no way Fisker was able to do anywhere near the sort of testing with A123 batteries that Tesla almost certainly managed.

Fisker lovers will find this hilarious: my friend just bought a Tesla. As the Tesla sales people were frantically trying to close the deal on her, they sold her the car saying the ex head Aston Martin design designed the Tesla Model S! Thought Elon sued Henrik that he kept the best design for himself?

Peace not to dedicated Tesla employees, both sales people and engineers on this blog: you don't need to spend energy bashing Fisker. Mr Musk tried it before by suing Fisker and lost. You don't understand the Fisker technology and by misrepresenting it you won't discourage Fisker existing and future customers. We all know you are hoping, praying and even trying to do everything to close Fisker down, but there is something called Karma and a forces of nature. That's why this amazing product and company Fisker, still exists, despite the controversies and will come through. A lot of people are rooting for Fisker and the movement is getting bigger!

Well after watching the tesloshere hyperventilate for the last few days I thought it time to set the record straight. First let me say that I certainly have all the respect in the world for Elon and I am unsure how slamming Fisker is beneficial to Tesla. For that reason I think it time to set the record straight?

From a technology point of view the Tesla model S is perhaps 1/5 the technology marvel that the Karma and even more to the point the Fisker next Gen powertrain. I mean really guys, how do I turn a Karma into abetted looking Tesla? Well one would simply remove the patented extended range technology and replace the batteries with some laptop batteries, take out the front touch panel and then Velcro an IPad to the dash. Then one has model S. The model S uses induction machine and charging technology from the 1990s. The pack replacement idea was originally Shai Aggasai's (wrong spelling probably) brainchild. The EV portion of the EVer technology is really very easy. The extended range portion requires significant skill, expertise and intellectual wherewithal. Sorry guys should of had a V8... Or better yet maybe help Bobby with his next big project... Save the polyesters!

The reality of a customer buying a car and why electric cars have a limited universe:

1. Range: Yes people do care about range as it limits people and does not give people the flexibility to drive more than 300 miles. For eg if you forget to plug your car or have a power cut or run out of range.

2. Space: Electric cars have limited range and are city cars in reality. If a car is meant for city purposes then you would never have a big trunk anyways as all city cars are designed for groceries. When I go for a long trip then I will take an Audi Q7, which have great space for a 4-wheel drive.

3. Performance: Most drivers never care about 0-60 on city roads as we have schools, pedestrians so you are not really speeding and causing harm to children or other pedestrians. The 0-60 concept is fun on a race track, on a free highway (which never really happens these days), and for that you would have a faster sports car such as a Porsche 911 Turbo, Porsche Panamera Turbo, Chevvy Corvette ZR1, Dodge Viper.

4. Purpose: When people buy a car the purpose is unlimited range, ease/speed of refueling/recharging, space depending on whether I am driving kids to school, driving in the city to get groceries).

The Fisker is drop dead gorgeous. But it's clear why the Tesla is outselling all it's electric car brethren. It has a super drivetrain and gets somewhere in the vicinity of 300 miles per charge. That's what they will take to sell. The new Cadillac ELR is gorgeous too but suffers from an inferior drivetrain. We'll see if it sells. If Tesla is getting 300 mpc today than it will only be a matter of time before they get to 400, 500... besides not using oil/gas the other advantage electric cars have is instant torque! I hope to test drive a Tesla soon. When electric cars do get to 500 mpc charge they will sell in big numbers.

Folks when are we going to get past the negative news of Fox, Reuters, Jalopnik and Gigaom. When will readers realise wow Fisker really has a potential and perhaps i should stop believing these dorky articles that have some vested interest: political, oil, Detroit or just getting PR..and let me make my own independent assessment. Fisker must a pretty innovative company to have so many enemies. Why is everyone trying to kill them? Why is Detroit jealous, Why does Bob Lutz want to buy it so cheap, why does Tesla have a hate campaign? Did A123 have issues and result in the downfall of Fisker? Yes it did. Why is it so hard to fathom that Fisker was on a path to become a autmotive company with world changing technology and a victim of several issues ranging from failed batteries, political backlash, bad PR to petty issues like those mentioned in the cheap Reuters article probably sponsored by Detroit! Lets try and embrace innovation, rather than be so scared of it. The more negative comments i read about Fisker,the more convinced I am about the potential of the company!

Has it really been one year since Fisker produced their last Karma? Seems like a long time to deal with supplier issues and not have an alternative in place. Why didn't they have a backup supplier or some kind of plan in place in case something like this happened?

A lot of the engineering in the Model S went
into making the car aerodynamic and keeping the weight down. If you
stuck a 85 kWh battery into the Karma, the EPA range should be around
160 miles, as the Karma gets 32 miles of range on approximately 17 kWh
(available battery capacity). That's nowhere near as attractive as 265
miles EPA range.

And I just don't see
how the extended range technology is particularly new. This is for the
most part the exact same technology that you find in a diesel-electric
locomotive. This was pioneered in the 1920s. And the Voltec drivetrain seems to be a better engineered version of the technology than the Fisker drivetrain.

And
Shai Agassi didn't
invent battery swapping. In cars, this was pioneered in the 1890s.
Looking ahead 20 years, the most probable outcome is that Better Place
is forgotten, and Tesla goes down in the history books as the company
that popularized automated battery swap stations. (I assume the Better
Place battery swap stations will be bulldozed within a few years, as
they will be too expensive to maintain for the few hundred compatible
cars on the roads.)

1. Range: If you have a range of 300 miles, range isn't much of an issue. If you forget to plug the car in, you still have something like 270 miles of range the following day, as the average mileage per day is somewhere in the area of 30 miles. (It varies by region.) If there's a power cut the gas pumps won't work either (and if independence is important to someone, they merely set up solar panels, and then there could be a zombie apocalypse for all they care. The EV would still work fine.) If someone runs out of range they screwed up. I've never run out of gas, but if I ever do, it would be entirely my fault for being an idiot.

2. Space: Electric cars are the future, they will serve every purpose; long distance trucking, trains, buses, cars, SUVs, motorcycles, etc. It is all possible with all electric drive. As such, space is a great thing to have. I am looking at a Model X, which would serve every purpose I would use it for. From towing a trailer to a cabin in the mountains to picking the kids up at soccer practice. (I'm a aerospace engineer, btw. I've looked at the facts and figures of electric cars for years, and they all add up. The only thing missing is cost reduction, and there's no doubt in my mind we'll get there.)

3. Performance: I don't know of anyone considering to pay $100k for a car who doesn't care about performance. It's rarely the only thing that matters, but it's certainly on the list. And 0-60 doesn't matter at all for driving on a track. You only do that once. The rest of the time you're accelerating at higher speeds. For my driving, 5-50 mph is the most important figure, as there are lots of roundabouts here. You roll through the roundabout, and then, BAM, you're at the speed limit. Infinitely entertaining, even in a POS car. The other situation where I want good acceleration is merging with freeways, and overtaking. "Launch Control" like you get on fossil cars is of course completely useless for my kind of driving.

4. Purpose: I don't see the conflict with electric drive. Cars like the Model S has unlimited range, just like gasoline cars. (Meaning they both have to refuel.) And I can't imagine a situation where I would need a third option if given the choice between a 20 minute rapid charge and 90 second battery swap.

@Go2thereThe issue with the Karma has never
been supply. This wouldn't have been any different if A123 had never had
any issues.The issue with the Karma is demand, or rather, the lack of
demand. I can walk into a dealership today, put down some money and
drive off in a new Karma. That wouldn't be possible if people had been
desperate to buy one after production halted.

The
basic issue with the Karma is that it caters to a fairly small portion
of the market. We are talking about people who have no issues paying
$100k for a car with four seats, that isn't particularly fast or green.
(0-60 mph in 6.3 seconds, 20 MPG in gasoline-only mode!) The Karma's
only selling points are design and interior, and that just doesn't cut
it. How big a market are we talking about? Maybe 2000 cars per year.
(And that's if the Karma hadn't acquired a reputation of being extremely
buggy and occasionally bursting into flames.)

If
Fisker were to sustain operations on 2000 cars per year, each car would
need to be significantly more expensive. But if each car was more
expensive, it would no longer be possible to sell 2000 cars, and each
car would need to be even more expensive. That is a vicious circle, and
my conclusion is at least that there is no realistic price point in
which Fisker would break even. Basically, the Karma is too expensive to
produce for the value produced. That can only be a result of poor
management/planning/engineering.

@Go2there Go2there Fisker is trying to deal with negative press like the article you referred to and people like yourself who believe in it. Since you show an interest in Fisker, do you have any positive suggestions for them? OR ever experienced one as a driver?

@Go2thereall
startups have problems with suppliers as suppliers are hesitant to
invest R&D into a one off product for a possible "fly by night"
start up. It is difficult enough to find one supplier let alone several
for an auto start up. From Tesla Motors 10k....

We
are dependent on our suppliers, the vast majority of which are single
source suppliers, and the inability of these suppliers to
continue to deliver, or their refusal to deliver, necessary components
of our vehicles in a timely manner at prices, quality levels, and
volumes acceptable to us would have a material adverse effect on our
business, prospects and operating results.

Model
S contains numerous purchased parts which we source globally from over
200 direct suppliers, the vast majority
of whom are currently single source suppliers for these components.
While we obtain components from multiple sources whenever possible,
similar to other automobile manufacturers, the vast majority of the
components used in our vehicles are purchased
by us from single sources. To date we have not qualified alternative
sources for most of the single sourced components used in our vehicles
and we generally do not maintain long-term agreements with our
suppliers.

While
we believe that we may be able to establish alternate supply
relationships and can obtain or engineer replacement components for
our single source components, we may be unable to do so in the short
term, or at all, at prices or costs that are favorable to us. In
particular, while we believe that we will be able to secure alternate
sources of supply for most of our single
sourced components in a relatively short time frame, qualifying
alternate suppliers or developing our own replacements for certain
highly customized components of our vehicles may be time consuming,
costly and may force us to make additional
modifications to a vehicle’s design.

You are misunderstanding the mission of the Fisker Karma. The Model S had different aspirations and goals vs the Fisker Karma.

Here is a simpler way to look at it. The Model S 85kWh was designed for a 300 mile range, the Fisker Karma with battery and RE was designed to have 300 miles of range. That was the goal for both companies (300 miles of range). Both were designed to do this utilizing electric motors. From this perspective both cars had relatively similar design goals.

The Fisker Karma and Model S design philosophy is something completely different. The Model S is a vanilla looking any car similar to a 6 year old Jaguar XF or the many other cars of the egg-shaped design mold. The Fisker Karma by all intensive purposes completely shatters that mold. Regardless of how you feel about the Karma there is no denying that it is one of the most dramatic vehicles ever created. No one will ever mistake a Karma for being a Kia (like people have the Model S).

Once again the pure serial hybrid technology used in the Karma is not even closely related to the Chevy Voltec technology. I really wish people would read the comments instead of having to repeat them several times over. Voltec has a planetary gearset that couples the ICE motor to the front drive wheels. That is not a pure serial hybrid setup and is more similar to the setups that Toyota uses with their hybrid technology.

So the question I have is why does the Voltec technology seem to be better engineered?

There has never been a pure serial hybrid vehicle sold prior to the Fisker Karma so it does seem to be new.

@Espen Hugaas Andersen 1. Range: The purpose of a vehicle is to provide mobility, not limit the range. Customers who spend $40K or less are very range sensitive as they have only one car. The ones who are $100K upwards, have multiple vehicles and would not make sense for them to spend $100K more or less and be limited by range. Then I would buy a cheap city car.

2. Space: No one these days carries large suitcases in trunks. If you are going to the mountains the likelihood is you would go in your SUV, not Model S for issues of range as 300 miles woudl not get you there and the chances that you would find a mountain range near your supercharger or your battery swapper or very limited. Hence, the space argument no longer holds.

3. Performance: It may be important to you, but not to the average driver. Most drivers think that electric cars have a higher 0-60 than a turbo charger, because of the torque. Safety is a big issues and I rarely have taken my 911 to its limits on city streets. That is pure reality. It may matter to you psychologically, but practically there is no way you put it to use without putting other people on the road at risk.

4. Purpose: A car that requires long intervals for recharging/refuelling or can limit you for that reason does not serve the basic purpose of what an automobile set out to be.

@Espen Hugaas Andersen@Go2there Espen again you are completely misled and misleading all readers. The biggest issue with Fisker was A123, the first recall was due to the cells failing. In that recall, Consumer Reports was 1 of the 8 cars that never had their battery replaced and their car had a safety stop. Jake Fischer from Consumer Reports decided it was so funny and put it on his face book (never thought a professional group was allowed to use social media)- imagine if your bankers did that when you defaulted on your mortgage payments or had something happen to your account. Anyhow that led to the onslaught of media, followed by their bankruptcy, in the meantime the faulty fan fire and 2nd recall, and finally Hurricane Sandy. Now with Sandy, how did Jalopnik get pictures of a Fisker Karma in the port- someone specially paid somebody to break port security and specially take a picture of the Karma and send it to Patrick George of Jalopnik. With all these issues, plus Detroit, Tesla using this to drive negative PR through Reuters, Jalopnik etc, sales suffer. Your post again seems like you are Tesla pro and subscribe to Fisker hate campaign. I have never known of any normal customer that cares about 0-60: this is only for technology fanatics who drive a Tesla, and most regular drivers do not. The ones who care about 0-60 like me, take out their Porsche 911 on the racetrack that will beat Tesla Model S any day. With respect to MPG: you are not reading what the customers get: almost above 150MPG. The Karma gives the driver the ability to get as high an MPG and does not work like hybrids or have range limitation like the Tesla. The gasoline engine give a range extension and prevents range anxiety.

Are
you referring to the half shafts? These cars do not have "axle shafts" This is probably the one part that would not have to be changed as they are run directly off the traction motors (through the central differential) in the Karma. These cars for the most part are direct drive.

You
are not an owner of a Model S nor a Karma yet you feel that you know so
much about these cars. You are not an automotive engineer and simply
have no idea how these cars work. The Voltec platform does not work in
the manner you describe neither does the EVer platform. There is no
driveshaft in either vehicle. You simply are making a fool out of
yourself by throwing in automotive terminology that is not even relevant
to this discussion or these vehicles. It is easy to hop on the
computer and type a diatribe full of false information- it is a little
tougher to type a well reasoned response based in reality. These cars
do not have driveshafts (so I am not sure how you would "redo some of
the driveshafts"), these cars do not use a remotely similar drive
mechanism (dual DC synchronous TM's vs a single motor). You really do
not know anything about automotive packaging and are just stabbing at
the wind. I find your comments comical and grossly misinformed. You
have 0 experience with automotive technology let alone EV's yet you somehow think that you are qualified to make predictions based on what?. It is obvious at this point you are merely an internet
troll. What does "probably" mean you have no experience in this field
yet you feel you know so much. How can one quantify the modifications you made when they are not even based on reality? What a riot!! Had a lot of fun and I am glad you will quit posting your rubbish. Good
night now!

And I never said *I* could make a Voltec drive into a functionally equivalent drivetrain to the Karma. I just said it could be done, and that it wouldn't be very hard. The changes to the drivetrain alone could probably be done by 10 people in 2 months. (Plus durability testing and such.) But creating a new car based on a different RWD platform would be a much more extensive job, more like 500 people in 6 months. (Plus testing and tweaking all the tolerances, production processes, etc.)

Also, I didn't have 8 "steps", I merely listed what you would need to do to the different components if you were to take the Voltec drivetrain and adapt it to a RWD platform, while not sacrificing the trunk (meaning you would have the genset at the front and the electric motor at the back). If you would sacrifice the trunk, you wouldn't really have to replace the planetary gear, even, you would just need to redo some of the drive shafts.

Anyway, that will be my last comment on that topic, unless you are willing to come up with reasoned arguments.

I would have no issues with calling the Karma a gasoline-electric vehicle, but I don't see the need to create another term, when plug-in hybrid means the same thing. I do have an issue with calling the Karma simply "electric".

@Espen Hugaas Andersen You claimed you could turn Voltec to be functionally the same as EVer in 8 steps (as outlined above). I will donate a Voltec powerplant so you can do this. These are your words not mine. Lets see if you can do it since you obviously have a great handle on how these things work. Now you are backing off it seems? Strange.

Gasoline turns a generator which creates electricity which sends power to electric motors which solely powers the rear wheels in a Karma. In a volt the ICE motor can turn the wheels under certain circumstances. The Karma is always driven by electric motors never does the gas motor drive the wheels. The ICE is a powerplant not a motivator of the wheels. Take a look at JB Straubel's electric Porsche with a Gen Set attached. Is that also a gasoline vehicle?

I am not sure how much clearer i can be at this point. It seems as if you are past the point of reason and are just typing words that have no corroboration with fact.

Have you seen the DC motors that Fisker uses on the Karma? There is no way they could use the same motors.
There is no linkage on these cars whatsoever its a planetary gearset all
controlled by wires. You do not have a simple understanding of physics
or engineering. You are living in the 1980's if you think gear-sets
still utilize four bar linkages. I urge you to please look at these
drivetrains and see how they work. You think you know but you really
don't. Great thread!

You really should design your own EV since you think you know so much about these cars. I will donate a Chevy Volt powertrain to your cause. It should only take a few hours since using your technology most if it can be reused. Once you complete this I will give you my Tesla Model S and Fisker Karma. You are a genius sir and your ability to simplify daunting problems like engineering EV"s on the fly with 8 steps should be rewarded. I will nominate you also for the Nobel Prize since you obviously have solved such perplexing problems in 5 mins (this would have taken a team of a hundred engineers several years to solve). Congratulations.

Firstly, I am an aerospace engineer. Not only that, I make six figures, so someone must think I'm a pretty good one.

Secondly, I said it would be a minor tweak to the drivetrain. If we are talking about the specific vehicles, it would be anything but a minor tweak, but if we're only talking about the drivetrain, the changes wouldn't be very great.

The motor could be the exact same one.

The battery could be the exact same one (You could at least have the same number of cells arranged in exactly the same way. The battery packaging might have to change.)

The charger could be the exact same one.

The inverter could be the exact same one.

The SW could be exactly alike (you'd need to change some parameters in the motor controller SW and engine controller SW, but that's all)

The BMS could be the exact same one.

The engine could be the exact same one.

The generator could be the exact same one.

The only thing you'd need to redo is the gear linkages. The gear linkage between the engine and generator and motor and wheels could both be replaced by single speed fixed gear linkages. I'd consider that a fairly minor tweak to the drivetrain.

Again, if we are talking about the Volt, which is based on the Delta II platform, changing it to RWD would be a major redesign, but if you start with a different, RWD platform, and put in the Voltec drivetrain the changes wouldn't be that great.

Also the Fisker always runs on electric motors. This is not the case with the Volt or any other car that is not pure electric. So in theory it is an electric vehicle since the wheels are 100% of the time turned by electric motors. It is no different than plugging a leaf, tesla or whatever into a generator. If you plug a Pure EV into your home (which lets say is powered by Solar) does that make your car a Solar car? What about if you plug into an outlet powered by a Coal or Nuclear plant..Does that make your car Nuclear or Coal powered? IMO these cars are still Electric Vehicles. Only cars that are not 100% powered by electric motors are non EV's (i.e. Prius, Volt and every other hybrid less the Fisker Karma out there).

This blog has been an eye opening experience, there is so much ignorance and just plain wrong information in these comments sections it is staggering. People just don't understand the technology and are not even willing to do a simple google search to figure out how things work. Perception is reality it seems.

LOL!
I am assuming you are not an engineer if you are coming up with
suggestions like "you just move the electric motor in back." Minor
tweak? it is obvious you have absolutely no clue how these powertrains
work.. The Fisker powertrain utilizes two traction motors mounted
perpendicular to the wheels. I really hope you read more about these
cars and learn how they work instead of spreading your mistruths on
blogs and forums. You have absolutely no idea how this technology works
and you are unwilling to even research it. The way it works in your
mind is different than reality. Please I urge you google image pictures
of "Fisker Drivetrain" and "Volt Drivetrain" and spend a few minutes
looking at the design. If you are just spouting off uninformed
information based on how you perceive this technology to work there is
no point in continuing this conversation. The EVer drivetrain cannot be
a FWD drivetrain. It is impossible, but in your mind you think it is a
minor tweak. lol what a riot...Please do more research then once you
figure it out come on here and respond. No need to waste bandwidth on
guesses and perceptions that are not based on easy to research factual
information.

The Volt can be turned into a rear wheel drive vehicle. You just move the electric motor to the back, and increase the length of the cabling. This would remove the option of coupling the engine to the wheels, but that would be a minor tweak. (Another option would be to move the entire drivetrain to the back, and sacrifice the trunk, instead having the trunk under the hood.) It should also be possible to use the Fisker drivetrain for FWD, but this would necessitate increasing the size of the engine bay. That would also be a minor tweak.

I my view there is absolutely no practical difference between burning gas to power the wheels instead of burning gas to generate electricity to power the wheels. The end result is that gas is burnt and the car moves forward. There have been emphatic discussions about whether plug-in hybrids like the Volt and Karma are EVs at all. Personally, I think the calling them EVs is diluting the term "EV", just because the marketing divisions of Chevy and Fisker didn't think "hybrid" was fancy enough. But it seems that Chevy and Fisker have won. Now hybrids are also EVs. The result is a bit confusing, because people don't call the plug-in hybrids "electric cars", just "electric vehicles" - that implies that the plug-in hybrids aren't cars.

The Volt cannot be transformed into a rear motor rear drive vehicle. That is something that is not possible with Voltec. Completely different setups- the EVer
technology in the Karma cannot be made into a FWD platform ditto for the
Volt. The kicker is once the ICE motor directly powers the wheels the car is not an EV at that point. This scenario would be impossible for the Fisker.

Both drivetrains have a gasoline engine that is coupled to a generator, which produces electricity which is used in electric motors to propel the car. Both drivetrains incorporate a battery placed between the two back seats, which is used to power the car for the first 30-50 miles.

Yes, there are differences like the ability to couple the gasoline engine of the Volt directly to the drive wheels, the Karma having two electric motors instead of one and the Volt having basically all performance available in electric mode while the Karma doesn't, but for all intents and purposes, the drivetrains are functionally equivalent. The drivetrain of the Volt could accomplish what the Karma does with two motors, with a single larger motor. The option to couple the gasoline motor of the Volt to the wheels can be switched off. The battery of the Karma could be beefed up to supply all performance in all-electric mode.

Basically, all the differences between the drivetrains of the Volt and Karma can be tweaked to the point where there is no way to tell the characteristics apart.

Please explain how the driveline layouts are very similar. One is a Rear drive platform the other is a front drive platform. One utilizes just wires to run a pair of traction motors the other uses a planetary gear set to spin a single traction motor. Have you seen in the flesh what a Karma powertrain and Volt powertrain look like?

@Espen Hugaas Andersen@Greg Dudevoir@Jim Ackley@inder.weiss You are talking about a whole bunch of projected statistics and I am talking about real people that own and drive a Karma on a daily basis. There electric bill is not tremendously increased and the money that they no longer spend at the gas pump is tremendously decreased. One guy I recently spoke to drove 11k in 2012 and filled up his 9.5 gallon gas tank 4 times costing him just over $150. That is close to 300 MPG using infrastructure that is in place today.

People who often drive less than 32 miles per day can be expected to be overrepresented among people who have bought the Karma. Simply because people who commute 60 miles to and from work each day can be expected to experience 42 MPG if they charge both at work and at home, and 27 MPG if they can only charge at home. On top of that is a consumption of around 42 kWh if they charge both at home and at work, or around 21 kWh if they only charge at home.

With $4/USG and $0.10/kWh, that works out to around $9.8 if you charge both at work and at home, and $19.1 if you only charge at home. A Tesla Model S would use around 42 kWh, at a cost of around $4.2. Over a year, that means the Karma costs about $1400 more than the Model S in fuel if you charge both at home and at work or about $3700 if you only charge at home. That's for 30,000 miles per year, which isn't unheard of.

Anyway, the more important factor is purchase cost. With the rapidly decreasing cost of batteries, there comes a point where the ICE of the series hybrid makes it impossible to compete even on production cost. This is maybe 10 years away. Then on top of that comes the savings on the operating costs.

@Espen Hugaas Andersen@Jim Ackley@inder.weiss The future is all electric but the now, what scares the big oil companies is EVer technology. What more did you expect from the Fisker Karma power train? It gets people from 20 to over 400 MPG. Driver input will dictate what you can get out of it. Like Karma what you put in you get out. Most people are getting over 100 MPG.

It suffices to say that I expected more from
Fiskers driveline. It may be that Voltec isn't significantly better,
when you compensate for power outout and the like. The driveline layouts
are very similar, so the biggest differences will come from the
components selected.

You can easily compare the powertrains if you have knowledge of how it works. The chassis and other things can be easily separated. I think you are trying to find negatives so you throwing in the "kitchen table" so to speak. How can you compare efficiencies of two completely different applications of a powertrain? That is like comparing a Mercedes CLS to a Scion TC. Lets compare the powertrains first. This means the actual bits that move the car not the chassis, or any other ancillary components. If I am going to take the time to respond I expect that you also give a well reasoned response.

Seperate the powertrain from the Volt and tell me why Voltec is superior to the EVer powertrain? Some things that you may want to take a look at is drivetrain setup, range sustain mode, peak output, performance, powertrain control strategies, max c battery output, regen strategies. These are all things that have to do with the way GM has implemented its Voltec technology and can be compared with EVer as they are driven by powertrain engineers. In the next chapter we will compare cars.

I agree the Karma is a more visually striking vehicle. Most people however do not buy cars on looks alone.

I think the Voltec drivetrain is superior for many reasons:

Better electric mileage. 284 Wh/mile instead of 531 Wh/mile

Better gasoline-only mileage. 37 MPG instead of 20 MPG

Lighter, cheaper, smaller, proven to be more reliable.

Full performance is available in all-electric mode. The Karma has only around 230 hp in stealth-mode and the full 402 hp is only available in sport-mode, when using the ICE.

There is the option of coupling the ICE to the wheels via a planetary gearset, when this is beneficial to the overall efficiency, reliability and durability. (Puzzling that you would count this against the Voltec drivetrain - it is a bonus.)

@Jim Ackley@Espen Hugaas Andersen Tesla-owned batteries are warranted indefinitely. If a battery in the battery-swap system fails after 10 years, it's not as if Tesla would require the battery renter to pay for the battery. They would simply take it away, provide them with a different battery until the rental ended, and apologize for the inconvenience.

Customer-owned batteries are warranted up to 8 years/unlimited miles.

I think I've figured out what you're having difficulties understanding. You seem to think that people would be constantly swapping batteriesand whatever battery happens to be in the car is owned by the owner of the vehicle. That's not how it works. You swap out your battery with a Tesla-owned battery, and drive off. Then you have three options:

Return to the battery swap station to retrieve your battery

Have Tesla deliver your battery to your house (or anywhere you want), and take back the Tesla-owned battery

Formally trade in your battery for the Tesla-owned battery in your car, with transfer of ownership and signing of paperwork, at an agreed-upon price. If you chose this option, you sign over your battery with whatever remaining warranty, and take ownership of the swapped-in battery, with whatever warranty stipulated by Tesla.

If you bide your time deciding which option to go for, there will almost certainly be battery rental costs that start running. again, the exact payment-model and costs, figures aren't known yet. But Tesla are good at making options attractive - they don't try to screw their customers.

I think you are actually confusing the battery with the car. The battery is not warranted indefinitely it is warranted for 8 years (85kwh) . The battery you swap in is only warranted for up to 8 years. If you swap the battery and it has 1 year left (or you trade it in for your battery that has 1 year left) and you drive around with it and that battery goes kaput after the year- at that point you are SOL according to Elon. The warranty follows the battery not the car. I have said this several times and posted a link. You have just posted your opinion with no support whatsoever. I would appreciate it if you post facts with proof instead of perpetuating mistruths on this forum. There is enough of that on blogs and the internet.

Where is this check business coming from? Is this another Espen assumption or is there something written by Tesla with corroborates this as fact? Lets try to stick to facts at this point instead of candyland fantasy.

@Jim Ackley When you've swapped your battery, "your battery" is the battery that is left behind in the swap station. The battery in your car is a Tesla-owned battery, which is warranted basically forever. If there is an issue with the Tesla-owned battery while it is in your car, it doesn't matter if your battery is out of warrenty or whatever. Tesla will take back their battery pack and give you yours back.

Maybe you're confusing the battery warranty with the warranty of the car? The battery and the car have separate warranties. The car is warranted for 4 years/50,000 miles, while the battery is warranted for 8 years/unlimited miles. If you swap a new battery out with a 5 year old battery immediately after purchasing the car, and buy this old battery pack, you'll have 4 years/50,000 miles remaining n the warranty on the car, and 3 years/unlimited miles on the battery pack. You'd probably get also get a check for something like $15k for trading in your new battery pack to Tesla in exchange for an old battery pack.

"Battery swapping doesn't affect the warranty of your battery. The battery you swap into the car will be owned by Tesla, and are basically warranted indefinitely."

This is not true- If you swap a battery (lets use the same capacity 85kwh for 85kwh) and if the battery that you are swapping is older you lose the remaining warranty period till you swap back to your other pack. The warranty goes with the battery not with the car. The swapped battery is not warranted indefinitely that is simply not true. The 85kWh battery is warranted for 8 years.

Consumer Reports said that the Model S handles better than the Karma? Do you have a link or quote?

If you have driven a Model S Performance it feels quite unstable at highway lane passing speeds. This is due to the suspension design (more moving parts than a normal wishbone suspension) The bushings help a bit but the sensation when making a high speed passing maneuver is not as crisp as the Karma. I urge you to test this when you actually purchase the vehicle. I own both vehicles and have driven them back to back on a test track and have felt this handling characteristic to be repeatable .

But again, the exact figures and cost calculations are not known yet. It must however be something along the lines of what I outline. If Tesla didn't compensate people for switching in a new battery pack, Tesla also can't charge people for swapping in an old battery pack, or no one would ever consider using the battery swap stations.

Every dual Tesla & Karma owner I know says that the Karma handles better. I have a package on my Model S called the Performance Plus- this package changes the suspension bushings with solid ones. Every single person I have spoken to that owns the non P Plus and Karma says that the Karma handles better. I don't know anyone that owns a P Plus and a Karma- in my opinion the Karma still handles better. I think you are mistaken about this- I have never heard anyone that has said that the Model S handles better than the Karma.

You are mistaken- Elon Musk in this interview clearly states that the warranty follows the pack.

If you think the Karma handles better, you are a minority. But, by all means, keep driving the Karma.

No, I haven't ever waited for a supercharger to open up, I am not a Tesla owner. (I have however test driven a Model S Performance.) The only reason why there are people who have to wait a bit for a supercharger to become available is that the Tesla is selling like crazy. That makes it hard for the scale up of superchargers to keep up with the ever-increasing demand. Tesla is working on it, and at some point in the near future the rate of supercharger deployment will equal the rate of increased demand. From that point onwards waiting for a supercharger will become rarer and rarer.

Battery swapping doesn't affect the warranty of your battery. The battery you swap into the car will be owned by Tesla, and are basically warranted indefinitely. If you decide to keep that battery, I assume you would get paperwork where the new warranty is stipulated by Tesla, and that you would compensate Tesla (or Tesla would compensate you) for any difference in the remaining warranty/battery life. We'll see more information about the financial side of the battery swapping in the next few months.

One thing to note here is the Karma's handling is very good. Better than the Performance Plus Model S that I own.

Have you ever waited a few hours for a Supercharger to open up? Not the best use of time. The demographic who are buying these cars is not going to wait 3 hours to get a free fill up. On the other hand if I were to use a 90 sec battery swap station- I would be paying $70 for 300 (ideal miles) of range. Plus I lose my very expensive battery (until I pick it up again). This could also potentially reduce my battery warranty (warranty stays with the battery not the car- so if I have a brand new car and I swap with a 2 year old battery my battery warranty is only 6 years until I swap back) Seems silly to me. I would rather just fill gas and keep moving rather than shed expensive parts of my vehicle or wait hours to get a free charge.

1. 10 years is an instant. The transition will happen right before our eyes. I, for one, count myself as lucky to be alive in such exciting automotive times. It will be the biggest transportation revolution since the T-Ford.

3. It would actually be very interesting to see the 911 against a Model S on snow. The fully electric ESC/TC is vastly superior to the mechanical ones you find in fossil cars, so it should be a fairly close match. Most people can't own a vehicle for every purpose, so when designing a vehicle, the key is to strike a balance between the different properties in a way that appeals to buyers. I think the Karma wasn't good enough on the performance. Not when you didn't get anything in return for the performance sacrificed.

4. I don't need 150 000 battery swap stations or superchargers. The US probably needs around 500 superchargers and 100 battery swap stations to have a more than sufficient coverage for over 90% of the population. The important thing to remember is that around 90% of the refueling needs are covered at home or at work. Supercharging and battery swapping is only for long distance trips.

3. Performance: You are right. BUT people who drive a Fisker Karma if need/want a performance car they either have one or will buy one, like I own a Porsche 911 Turbo that is faster, lighter and will beat a Tesla Model S/Fisker Karma anywhere anytime on any road, even in the snow as it has a 4-wheel drive!

4. 90 seconds: Dream on about battery swapping and supercharging stations!! When do you think there will be a 150,000 battery swapping and superchargers in the US??? Because there is 150,000 gas stations already. AND That took 50 years and billions of dollars to build up. AND they make a profit by selling fuel.

1. We need to look to the future, when those cars costing $40k have a 300 mile range. This is probably 5-10 years away.

2.The
Model X would be my only car. My wife might have a Leaf or something
for getting around town. The Model X would be fine for getting to the
cabin, which is around 150 miles away. Then I'd recharge when I arrived.
This is no problem.

3. All other things being equal, over 95%
of people will always chose more performance over less performance. The
issue with the Karma is not that it is slow - the issue is that
equivalent cars in the same price range are faster.

The Fisker customer who spent money and has experienced a Fisker Karma is most important as they are true brand ambassadors and can truly comment on the car. They have truly experienced the potential of this car and know where the company can reach. If the company had not faced the issues I highlighted above, the company would have achieved what it set out to achieve originally. The problem is people are not able to understand and accept this reality and need to find a problem with the car or with the manufacturing profit or invent another reason.

The issue is not what Fisker customers are happy with, the issue is what all the people who didn't chose Fisker are unhappy with. Of course all the people who bought a Karma are happy with it (or thought they would be). That's like saying that almost everyone who owns golf clubs like to golf. It's obviously true, but it doesn't mean everyone likes to golf.

@Espen Hugaas Andersen I do agree with you on one point that Mr Fisker started with a great idea and delivered on it. The message got diluted with all the issues the company had and the terrible management the company hired. The Detroit people took Chrysler and GM down and no surprise they did the same to Fisker. BTW you do get all the acceleration you desire with the Fisker Karma too...

1. Price: There are crazy reports from Fisker loosing $35,000 a car to $550,000 a car. So do not believe everything you read.

2. Space: Never bothered any Fisker customers, only media folks and Model S lovers who need to carry bog luggages to I have no clue where.

3. 0-60: Never bothered any Fisker customer, only techies. Most customers love the torque. Those stats are good for car magazines, no use in practicality.

4. The customers get over 150MPG as it is in our hands to drive the vehicle the way we want to. Again misleading number you quote. Even TUV in Europe gave Fisker a 112MPG to the Fisker Karma! Shows different ways of using a car.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there is no conspiracy to destroy Fisker. I was actually a fan of Fisker before I was a fan of Tesla. Henrik had what seems to have been a good idea at the time, but along the way, this idea was diluted until the result was nowhere near the original idea. That's unfortunate, as I believe the Karma could have been successful if it had been closer to the original idea. They should have managed these things:

Price $90-110k, ~$80k production cost

Fifth seat and more space for luggage

0-60 mph in 5 seconds

35 MPG in gasoline-only mode

If Fisker had done these things as well as avoided some of the more serious supplier issues and the like, the Karma would have been successful, and Fisker would have survived to make the Atlantic.